Tuesday, 7 July 2009

Raul and Bernie II

There are two obvious reasons the establishment would prefer to keep the holocaust story simple and so attack someone like Ecclestone for offering a more nuanced take than the typical~ ‘Hitler was an evil anti-Semite who wanted to murder all of Europe’s Jews and settled on death camps with poison-gas chambers as the method to achieve this.’ The simple narrative lends itself to use for two programs central to the worldview of our elites, anti-nationalism for most of us, coupled with fierce nationalism for Jews.

But there’s a third explanation for the pitiless attack on Ecclestone and it may also explain why people that are surely aware of Hilberg’s research, work that seems to justify Ecclestone’s comments, are among his most vociferous critics.

Here, again, are Hilberg’s words:

1) “There was no pre-established guiding plan. As for the question of the decision, it is in part unsolvable: no order signed by Hitler has ever been found, doubtless because no such document ever existed. I am persuaded that the bureaucracies moved through a sort of latent structure: each decision brings on another, then another, and so forth, even if it isn’t possible to foresee exactly the next step.” (In Le Monde des Livres, October 26th, 2006)

2) “What began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. They were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus came not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus-mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy.” (February 22nd, 1983 at an event arranged by the Holocaust Survivors Foundation, quoted in Newsday a day later)

‘Colin Laney’ in a comments thread at MajorityRights.com remarks on the implication of these statements if true:

[quote] It should be acknowledged that even Yad Vashem does not hold that there were death camps inside of Germany. This is very significant: every camp that might meet the conditions of the hypothetical death camps just happen to be those which were captured by the Red Army …

Since [the revisionist] case has taken the day with regards to all of the camps captured by the West, there is strong reason to believe that the case you make that begins with the officers in these camps intuiting and carrying out the wishes of their superiors is not sustainable. Part of your case is plausible, that officers in the field understand their broader mandate and pursued it under their individual initiative, but how on earth could the Nazis have known in advance to only kill Jews in only those camps that would later be captured by the Soviets, rather than the Americans or the British?

Perhaps the Nazis really did have the Spear of Destiny and could use it to tell the future? But even accepting this - as we now must - do we go on to suppose that the Ahnererbe was sharing occult information with officers in charge of the camps, even morale crushing information about their eventual loss of the war? [end quote]

2 comments:

Frank said...

"The simple narrative lends itself to use for two programs central to the worldview of our elites, anti-nationalism for most of us, coupled with fierce nationalism for Jews."

Yes!

"This is very significant: every camp that might meet the conditions of the hypothetical death camps just happen to be those which were captured by the Red Army …"

I wasn't aware of that. Odd indeed.

fellist said...

It is difficult to explain.